calfoxwc Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Amendments to our Constitution ADD rights, they don't arbitrarily take them away. The left on this board has always talked about "common sense gun control", when it's always been proven that we HAVE laws already, and that criminals/terrorists/mentally ill violent people will still find them one way or another. It always strikes me as silly, the liberals consistently defend the legalization of pot, by referring to how the prohibition didn't work. Really? You think gun prohibition will, though? All too often on this board, we had "haha nobody is wanting to take your guns, gun advocates". The truth is quite the opposite. Of course they do - the liberals always secretly wanted a complete win over people not thinking and living like they do. At least the lie is now been rendered obsolete. http://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/the-anti-gun-left-declares-war-on-your-gun-rights/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=e2691138aa-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-e2691138aa-20770865#axzz3tvFl8QRI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 It's not about gun confiscation. And most mass shooters seem to buy the guns legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 edw, you are all wet in Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 "It's this! Liberals!" It's not that "Well you're a dumb liberal!" Rinse and repeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Of course confiscation is the ultimate goal. It's naive to believe anything else. However at this stage that's too radical for even radicals to attempt. You'd have to strip down the second amendment a good deal first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Cal- amendments add no rights. They are there to remind the government we are born with those rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Cal- amendments add no rights. They are there to remind the government we are born with those rights. 18th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 18th? Repealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 But did it "remind the govt we are born with those rights"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 But did it "remind the govt we are born with those rights"? No, but you could probably argue that that factored in to its repealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 ammoland.com That's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 But did it "remind the govt we are born with those rights"? Meant the Bill of Rights or the 1st -10th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 "It's this! Liberals!" It's not that "Well you're a dumb liberal!" Rinse and repeat Stuart Liberals are dumb goes without saying but what you gave was also an example of liberals heads buried in the sand. Take your pick: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=liberals+want+gun+confiscation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Cal- amendments add no rights.They are there to remind the government we are born with those rights. Leg ************************************** I stand corrected. ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 I posted a thread earlier about Hillary Clinton saying we should look to Australia's gun control as a model for our country. As usual if the woman isn't flat out lying she is leaving out important facts. In this case Australia did not have gun control they had gun confiscation. Clinton talked about Australia's government buying back guns from citizens and compared it to Obama's cash for clunkers (failed) program. She left out the part about the citizens in Australia being forced to surrender their guns or they would go to jail. Obama too has floated the idea of looking at Australia's gun confiscation as a model for the United States. Interestingly Australia got a national gun registry from people who owned semi automatic firearms for the purpose of grandfathering those guns however that list was only used to know who had the guns and where those who owned them lived to go after them. There was no grandfathering. Court decision paves the way for Australian-style gun ban On Monday, the Court of Appeals for the Second U.S. Circuit issued a long awaited decision on the constitutionality of the most drastic gun control law in U.S. history, the New York SAFE Act of 2013. The Second Circuit ruled that nearly all of the law does not violate the Second Amendment. The SAFE ("Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement") Act was presented to the New York State Senate and passed into law in 15 minutes. No debate was allowed, and senators did not have time to read the bill before voting it into law. The SAFE Act is a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all military-style semi-automatic rifles manufactured within the past several decades. It is a total ban on the AR-15, AK-47, M-14/M-1a, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and many other civilian copies of military firearms. Prior to the passage of the law, Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that he was considering "confiscation" of existing rifles, but the final version of the law allowed existing owners to keep their rifles as long as they registered them with the State. Upon the death of the owner, the rifle will be confiscated; it cannot be transferred to an heir within New York State. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/court_decision_paves_the_way_for_australianstyle_gun_ban.html#ixzz3u7APc2HxFollow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Stuart And the more gibberish about gun control/confiscation spewing from Obama and the left, the higher the gun sales....even on the left coast. Good strategy there liberal Retards. http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_29238575/californias-gun-sales-break-records Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 From the article I posted...don't think it cannot happen here: Now that the Second Circuit has upheld the law, residents within the court's jurisdiction have no recourse except to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court – where there will be a guaranteed four votes against the Second Amendment. As I wrote last year, Gov. Cuomo and former Mayor Bloomberg, the backers of the SAFE Act, were betting that the law will be upheld by the Supreme Court, thus paving the way for a national version of the law (which has already been introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.). Indeed, Cuomo immediately called for a national SAFE Act as soon as the Second Circuit issued its ruling Monday. The Second Circuit's decision comes only one week after both President Obama and Hillary Clinton publicly praised the Australian and British mass gun confiscations of the 1990s. If the SAFE Act is upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing prevents Congress from summarily outlawing tens of millions of firearms overnight. Once those firearms become contraband, the government may confiscate and destroy them without compensating the owner (just as the government confiscates and destroys illegal drugs). The Second Circuit's decision leaves the Second Amendment in its gravest peril ever. Second Amendment rights are now hanging by a one-vote margin in the same Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare and declared a national right to gay marriage. Constitutional conservatives and Second Amendment supporters ought to be terrified over the prospect of Justice Scalia having a heart attack during a Hillary Clinton presidency. The Second Circuit's decision places the hands of the Second Amendment doomsday clock at two minutes to midnight. If you think "it can't happen here," you're wrong. It already is happening here. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/court_decision_paves_the_way_for_australianstyle_gun_ban.html#ixzz3u7DgTf6kFollow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 if a corrupt court were to overrule the existence of the second amendment somehow... it will never actually work to take away our freedoms and our rights. All activist judges, even on the supreme court, need to be disbarred by the U.S. States Congress by a simple majority vote. Australia never had that legal guarantee. That is part of the excellent wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Let em try and arrest a hundred million gun owners. Who knows what the number is, and the gov doesn't have a right to know. Because that would take a registration, and that leads to confiscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 If it weren't for guns the colonies probably would have never been a thing. Unless you're sending some men across the ocean on ships to sword fight all of the native americans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 If it weren't for guns the colonies probably would have never been a thing. Unless you're sending some men across the ocean on ships to sword fight all of the native americans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 If it weren't for guns the colonies probably would have never been a thing. Unless you're sending some men across the ocean on ships to sword fight all of the native americans... So guns are a good thing, right? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Indians, not native americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.